By 
Klaus M. Schmidt Flores
Photo by Mark Stebnicki from Pexels, 18 October 2010
Despite international scrutiny, companies in Xinjiang, China, are still linked to forced labour supply chains. Recent reports incite a wave of calls to implement immediate corporate and international legal accountability.
International attention has focused on China’s Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR), for the alleged use of forced labour involving Uyghur and other ethnic minority workers. These alleged pervasive practices within the textile, electronic, and apparel industries have been made public through investigations conducted on global supply chains (Amnesty International, 2021). Furthermore, reports created by several human rights organisations, such as the Human Rights Watch and ASPI, have led to the documentation of incidents of mass arbitrary detention, and forced ideological indoctrination, in addition to coercive labour programs in the region. (ASPI, 2020; Human Rights Watch, 2021). These reports suggest that over a million Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslim minorities have been subjected to extrajudicial detention in Xinjiang’s “re-education’ camps. Additionally, these reports portray how these individuals are subjected to ideological training, surveillance, and coerced labour (BBC, 2020).
Pursuant to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), over 80 international brands have been found to have a direct or indirect link to factories enforcing forced labour practices on minority workers through government transfer programs (ASPI, 2020). Despite clear indications of systemic and widespread coercion and involuntary individual participation within nationally located facilities, national bodies still consider these governmental transfer programs as employment programs (Amnesty International, 2021).
About 20 percent of the global production of cotton originates from Xinjiang. As such, global suppliers and retailers are systematically placed under scrutiny due to the possible connection arising from their marketed goods being products of forced labour practices (Amnesty International, 2021). Coming into effect in June 2022, the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) creates a presumption within the United States market that, unless proven otherwise, products stemming from Xinjiang are products of forced labour practices (U.S. CBP, 2023). This serves as an example of how different international jurisdictions have reacted to this. Another example of this is how the European Parliament has addressed the situation in Xinjiang as a high risk for a potential genocide, causing the implementation of mandatory human rights diligence legislation at an EU level (European Parliament, 2021).
With the aforementioned, it is pertinent to mention how companies must uphold human rights standards at all levels. They must ensure labour rights are protected, and offer redress for any potential infractions to human rights, in accordance with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs). As the implementation of the UNGPs can be considered uneven, the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) and the Supply Chain Due Diligence Act (LkSG) aim to provide balance to this. Despite the implementation of these initiatives, there is a national skepticism to third-party inspections, placing a barrier for human rights organisations to conduct extensive audits on Xinjiang’s supply chains.
Accordingly, there is an increase in international cooperation aiming to implement structurally efficient corporate accountability measures, as the initiatives of the UFLPA and CSDDD indicate, ensuring the protection and enforcement of labour rights. The ongoing nature of this situation has left governmental agencies, corporations, as well as civil society actors in a continuous battle against forced labour practices within Xinjiang. Particularly as these industries are directly linked to uneven enforcement practices safeguarding labour rights, meaning that supply chain organisations have difficulty gaining transparency on the sourcing practices of their raw material.
The ongoing realisation of these events highlights the immediate necessity for transparent and binding due diligence procedures required to meet and protect international human rights norms within the international trade of all cotton-derived products.
Sources and Further Readings
Amnesty International. (2021, June 10). China: Draconian repression of Muslims in Xinjiang amounts to crimes against humanity. Amnesty International.
BBC. (2020, July 24). China’s ‘re-education camps’ for Uighurs explained.
European Commission. (2022, February 23). Proposal for a Directive on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence and amending Directive (EU) 2019/1937.
European Parliament. (2021, March 10). European Parliament resolution on Chinese government’s actions in Xinjiang.
Human Rights Watch. (2021, March 27). China: Companies should resist boycott threats.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection. (2023). Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act Statistics.
Comments